Dumb Question on Rapid Fire

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Edges

Oh. Wait, are they required for mêlée attacks?.

Actually, no. The section on Rapid Strike in the Basic Set explicitly allows you split them between multiple opponents. I wouldn't call it an illogical house rule to toss an extra penalty on that though.

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by Edges

Oh. Wait, are they required for mêlée attacks? I don't see anything about that in MA. MA127 talks about Multiple Targets but doesn't say anything about requiring spacial advantages. Granted, it is in the Cinematic Combat section. But other passages in that section (like Rapid Strike on that same page) refers to TbaM and WM as options than will improve ones chances rather than be required.

Would you direct me to your source? Have I misunderstood you?

Thanks.

From Martial Arts, Page 127:

Rapid Strike (p. B370): Unless he took Move and Attack, a warrior can split one of his melee attacks into two attacks with the same weapon or two unarmed attacks, at an extra - 6. Those with Trained by a Master or Weapon Master take half the penalty, and may be able to attempt three or more attacks; see Rapid Strike (below).

Emphases in original. This builds on the text in Campaigns, which states that Rapid Strike gets you one extra attack, on page B370.

So the basic rule is only two attacks with Rapid Strike. Martial Arts allows more in cinematic games, and suggests they be limited even there to those with Weapon Master or Trained by a Master.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

From Martial Arts, Page 127:


Emphases in original. This builds on the text in Campaigns, which states that Rapid Strike gets you one extra attack, on page B370.

So the basic rule is only two attacks with Rapid Strike. Martial Arts allows more in cinematic games, and suggests they be limited even there to those with Weapon Master or Trained by a Master.

That isn't what MA is saying.

Anyone can take a 2-Strike Rapid strike. You don't need Weapon Master or TBaM. If you have WM or TBaM, you halve the Rapid Strike Penalty. What MA suggests is limiting more than two rapid strikes to cinematic games...and offers that some GMs may want to further limit 3+ Rapid Strikes to only those with WM or TBaM.

2 Strike Rapid Strikes are completely in the realm of okay in a non-cinematic campaign/without WM or TBaM.

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by trooper6

That isn't what MA is saying.

Anyone can take a 2-Strike Rapid strike. You don't need Weapon Master or TBaM. If you have WM or TBaM, you halve the Rapid Strike Penalty. What MA suggests is limiting more than two rapid strikes to cinematic games...and offers that some GMs may want to further limit 3+ Rapid Strikes to only those with WM or TBaM.

2 Strike Rapid Strikes are completely in the realm of okay in a non-cinematic campaign/without WM or TBaM.

I thought that's what I said, but apparently not.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

I thought that's what I said, but apparently not.

You probably did and I had a brain fail. :)

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

From Martial Arts, Page 127:


Emphases in original. This builds on the text in Campaigns, which states that Rapid Strike gets you one extra attack, on page B370.

So the basic rule is only two attacks with Rapid Strike. Martial Arts allows more in cinematic games, and suggests they be limited even there to those with Weapon Master or Trained by a Master.

The basic rule allows you to turn one extra attack either from AoA (Double), Extra Attack, or whatever into a 2-attack Rapid Strike. This gives a fighter 3 attacks total. I don't see anywhere where it requires TbaM, WM, or the equivalent to divide these attacks among three separate adjacent targets.

As for 3-attack Rapid Strikes, I didn't realize that you meant "the GM may rule" when you said "you would need."

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by Edges

I don't see anywhere where it requires TbaM, WM, or the equivalent to divide these attacks among three separate adjacent targets.

It doesn't. You can divide your attacks however you want.

As for 3-attack Rapid Strikes, I didn't realize that you meant "the GM may rule" when you said "you would need."

Obviously the GM may rule anything he likes, but the default is that you do indeed need the cinematic advantages.

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

It doesn't. You can divide your attacks however you want.

Thanks for confiming. That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Diomedes

Obviously the GM may rule anything he likes, but the default is that you do indeed need the cinematic advantages.

Admittedly, it does seem somewhat contradictory when in the 4th paragraph on MA127 it seems to suggest that only people with cinematic advantages can make the 3-attack RS while the 3-paragraph passage on the same page talks about it as if it's optional both explicitly and in the example.

To me, since the earlier section doesn't actually say "only" and it refers one to paragraphs that clearly discuss the situation of not having the advantages, it's not the default. To me, "may be able to attempt...see below" means "the GM may rule" (which is what it says below along). And to me that means "the default is that they aren't needed but it's entirely likely that the GM may rule that they are." To me the fact that the penalties for not having the advantages are the ones listed also means needing the advantages is not the default. YMMV

In any event, I'm glad I didn't let my non-Gunslinger gunslinger get away with too much in my Old West campaign.